Got another Lyman mould.....

[shredder]

And I love it!

I just got back in from the garage with 50 beautiful boolits from a new Lyman 358315 for my .35 Remington. I just miced them and they are solid at .359. Woo Hooo!!!!!

I also have a 311332 and a 314299 and they all cast fantastic, accurate boolits. My new .35 mould though, is the best of the lot. The boolits fell out of the cavities easily and in very short order once the mould got heated up. One of the sweetest casting moulds out of the many that I own. Virtually all keepers, and at a diameter that is perfect for my Marlin 336 rifle.

Now to load some up and shoot em!:Fire:

[Muskyhunter1]

I agree. I just got a Lyman 266469 6.5 RN GC 140 grain in double cavity. It too is an awesome mold. Drops them about .267 with WW and I size them at .266. They come out just beautiful and shoot even better 6.5 Jap, 6.5 Carcano and my Swed.

I don't know what Lyman did but I hope they keep at it.

[shredder]

Funny how so much of what I read about current productin Lyman moulds is negative. I just can't say that has been my experience.

[HARRYMPOPE]

the last two 314299's club members ordered were under .301 on the nose (in Linotype mind you) and it took a month for replacements.
One of the fellows 2nd mold was barely .302. Frustrated he sent it off to Erik Ohlen and he added a .306 band to the nose and it plain shoots now.

[fred2892]

Isn't the 314299 nose designed to be a .300 bore rider?

[Ben]

Isn't the 314299 nose designed to be a .300 bore rider?
________________________________

Why would it be identified as a 314 mold if it were for a true .30 cal. bore ? The 311299 is the mold intended for a true .30 cal. bore.

The 314299 is a .31 cal mold for the 303 Brit ., 7.7 Jap, and 7.62 X 54 R rounds.

[Ben]

the last two 314299's club members ordered were under .301 on the nose (in Linotype mind you) and it took a month for replacements.
One of the fellows 2nd mold was barely .302. Frustrated he sent it off to Erik Ohlen and he added a .306 band to the nose and it plain shoots now.


:(:(:(More sub-size casting Lyman molds.:(:(:(
And the saga continues.............

[fred2892]

My bad, yes it should have a .303 bore riding nose. Saying that, my 311299, 314299 and 316299 all cast a .303 nose section. 311299 casts at .313 on the drive bands. The 314299 casts at .315. Biggest disappointment was the 316299 which only casts at .315.

[Ben]

fred2892

It is regrettable but the inconsistencies that come from Lyman now would make their old employees from the 30's and 40's cringe.

[Larry Gibson]

fred2892

It is regrettable but the inconsistencies that come from Lyman now would make their old employees from the 30's and 40's cringe.

Anyone want to send me a Lyman mould that casts "undersize" (not to nominal diameter with a proper alloy and casting technique)? I am still patiently waiting to be shown one of these Lyman moulds. I have a standing offer and if one does cast undersize I will pay you what you paid for it plus the shipping to me. You can't lose......

Larry Gibson

[shredder]

Anyone want to send me a Lyman mould that casts "undersize" (not to nominal diameter with a proper alloy and casting technique)? I am still patiently waiting to be shown one of these Lyman moulds. I have a standing offer and if one does cast undersize I will pay you what you paid for it plus the shipping to me. You can't lose......

Larry Gibson

Intersting offer. Never happened to me but I am watching to see if anyone takes this on.

[Larry Gibson]

Intersting offer. Never happened to me but I am watching to see if anyone takes this on.

I've had several take me on with this offer. I've returned all the moulds with examples of cast bullets of nominal of larger diameter and information on the alloy used (Lyman #2 or COWWs + 2% tin) and the casting technique used (nothing more than found in Lyman's CBHs for bottom pour furnace or with a Lyman/RCBS ladle). Always received a thank you for the information.

I don't make the offer to show anyone up here nor do I receive a thing from Lyman for it. My only reason is to assist others in successfully using their Lyman moulds. If Lyman does make one that will not cast to nominal diameter with a correct alloy and casting technique I really would like to see it. As noted I am willing to pay to see one and will readily admit all the details on this forum if and when I do.

Larry Gibson

[btroj]

Larry, I don't buy Lyman moulds be cause they are designed to cast undersized for my needs. I don't want a .457 bullet for my 45-70, I want a .459 at a minimum.

Lyman insists upon making moulds that cast smaller than we want in many cases. Are they undersized based on their specs? Nope. But their specs will prevent me from buying moulds from them. I don't shoot .429 bullets in my SRH, I shoot .432.

I buy moulds from the custom makers because they make bullets the size I want.

[longbow]

Larry is right. Most of us are not using Lyman #2 alloy and probably not using the casting techniques Lyman recommends. Final as cast diameters will vary some then no argument there.

Where I get confused is why Lyman picks the sizing they do. Now I am not the smartest guy in the room (and I am alone currently!) but unless I am missing something, why would a company make a mould that casts at a stated size that is at or under what the gun requires? Especially a company that had its origins back before there were many standards and firearms bores varied immensely?

A mould should cast no less than groove diameter and preferably at least 0.001" over groove diameter to allow for sizing. No?

I guess I do not have extensive personal experience as I have few Lyman moulds and really do not cast for a large variety of calibers but for what I have, I find:

- my Lyman 429421 casts at 0.429" for a SAAMI spec throat of 0.4325" and groove diameter of 0.429" for both .44 Spc and .44 mag. I can expect maybe 0.001" undersize by using the wrong alloy so maybe Lyman #2 alloy would cast at 0.430" to 0.431"? Still way undersize for my Marlin though. SAAMI spec for .44 mag rifle is 0.431" groove and mine like many is larger than that. A mould that cast at 0.432" would work for both without excessive sizing for handgun
- my Lyman 314299 cast at 0.312"/0.313" for a SAAMI spec 0.313" throat entrance and 0.314" groove diameter. I might gain 0.001" in correct alloy but still small for .303 British and since most milsurps are even sloppier and since that is what this boolit was intended for it should be casting at around 0.316". I had borrowed a 314299 before I bought mine and that one cast at 0.311"/0.312".
- my Lyman 31141 casts at 0.310"/0.311" which is perfect for standard .30 cal. Go figure.
- I have several Lyman round ball moulds and all cast at least 0.001" over the stated diameter.

The above refers to boolits/balls cast from wheelweights or range scrap so NOT Lyman #2 alloy.

Now, my NOE (2 X .303 moulds), Accurate (1 X .44 mould) and Mihec (2 X .44 moulds) moulds all cast to stated diameter or no more than 0.0005" less using the same wheelweights or range scrap and they also cast boolits closer to round than my Lyman moulds. Also, my NOE, Accurate and Mihec moulds are sized to suit the firearms bore which of course is what we are looking for. I cannot order a Lyman 434640 but I can order a Mihec 434640 that casts at, guess what, 0.4335" using wheelweights. My NOE 316299 casts at 0.3155" using wheelweights so perfect for my .303 with 0.315" throat and 0.314" groove diameter.

Hmmmmm, looking back at that SAAMI .303 chamber I have to wonder how one gets 0.313" throat and 0.314" groove. But that would be a different subject altogether.

So, is that a complaint or not? In general I have liked my Lyman moulds (I used to have more) but I think they should increase cavity size to ensure that boolits can be sized down to suit common groove diameters, and it would be nice if they would provide a diameter selection to suit milsurps or other oversize bores. I guess my thinking is that if a guy is buying a 314299 for a .303 British, the mould should cast large enough to be sized to suit the bore spec so that should be no less than 0.315". Either that or make a 315299. Same for .44 ~ make a 432421.

Longbow

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, I don't buy Lyman moulds be cause they are designed to cast undersized for my needs. I don't want a .457 bullet for my 45-70, I want a .459 at a minimum.

Lyman insists upon making moulds that cast smaller than we want in many cases. Are they undersized based on their specs? Nope. But their specs will prevent me from buying moulds from them. I don't shoot .429 bullets in my SRH, I shoot .432.

I buy moulds from the custom makers because they make bullets the size I want.

I've no problems with that at all. I also have several such custom "oversize" moulds. The problem arises from someone wanting such an oversize mould and then badmouthing Lyman and the other makers for their moulds not producing such. Also from those who use the wrong alloy (primarily COWWs) in moulds designed for other alloys. Additionally we have many who cast successfully with some moulds and not successfully with others. The human nature thing is to criticize the mould for undersize bullets when it is really "operator error".

As I stated earlier; my intention is to learn and to educate. For those who want to get larger than nominal diameter bullets with COWW alloy should understand that moulds were not designed for that alloy. If they want to criticize it should be for their own decision to buy moulds not designed for what they want. It's a bit unfair to trash Lyman, RCBS or a any other maker for such. They should have spent their money getting a mould designed for COWWs. However, for all those who thrive on plain COWWs the writing is on the wall that that supply is or will be drying up very shortly, Then if they switch to a quality ternary alloy their custom made for COWW moulds will then be casting to large. Their only choice then will be to mix up a batch of alloy as close to COWWs as they can. Good luck to that.

Furthermore, while I do believe fit is important, I do not believe it is "king". Many times I have found, especially in revolvers and rifles, that a cast bullet too large is detrimental to best accuracy. Many times the "king" is really a "joker" in disguise.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

longbow

Where I get confused is why Lyman picks the sizing they do. Now I am not the smartest guy in the room (and I am alone currently!) but unless I am missing something, why would a company make a mould that casts at a stated size that is at or under what the gun requires? Especially a company that had its origins back before there were many standards and firearms bores varied immensely?

A mould should cast no less than groove diameter and preferably at least 0.001" over groove diameter to allow for sizing. No?

Lyman's recommendation is based on the "industry standard" groove diameter. They have no idea what the groove diameter of your rifle actually is. Probably why in most Lyman CBHs they recommend slugging the barrel groove diameter and sizing to .001 over? In revolvers there is way too much variation in cylinder throat diameters. Lyman chose to go with barrel groove diameters. If you read the test parameters listed at the beginning of each cartridge you will see the groove diameter they had and the sizing they used. They must make a mould that will fit the larger majority of use in the middle, not the extremes on each end. And yes those who size cast to cylinder throat diameter are a very small majority of cast bullet shooters in handguns. BTW; the commonly held belief is that "common" groove diameter for the .303 British is a .303" bore with a .311" groove diameter (lands .004" deep).

We may think we and our needs are important to the cast bullet industry but in reality we represent a very, very small part of it.


Larry Gibson

[geargnasher]

Larry, you HAVE seen at least one undersized Lyman mould because I sent it to you. You advised I send it back to Lyman because the cavities didn't line up, but even if they had, it would have cast at .455" . I replied that you could have it if YOU went to the trouble of sending it back to Lyman, but either you missed that PM or didn't want to fight with them over it any more than I did. I still don't know why you didn't pour a few with it to see what size it really cast. That was a 457132, and I have an older one from the late '90s that casts .4578 with WW alloy plus 2% tin if you watch your temps. Hell, you can lay the blocks side by side and measure the cavities and there's nearly .003" difference in the band diameter!!!! Only difference is the period they were produced and the condition of the tooling. That was just one example, though, and proves nothing really, which is what you'll say if you ever do get one of the many recent-production undersized nightmares.

On the other one, I TOLD you my alloy and running the mould too hot was probably my issue, but it was the best example I had left to send you at the time since I unloaded all of the even dozen horrific Lyman disasters that I'd purchased new since about 2007. You'll also recall that that mould was made in 2001, before this mess started.

I appreciate your time to double-check my work, and you did get the one mould to cast at nominal with WWish alloy (you know what you're doing because that's a finicky mould temp-wise to not get shrunken middle bands), but I don't appreciate your partial report of the story, or leaving out details that are contrary to your high-horse. You do this with every topic and it got old many years ago.



The facts from MY experience (take it for what it's worth, just MY experience) are that Lyman has had a big problem with worn-out cherries, worn boring vises (alignment issues) and poor quality control in the past few years. Some of their stuff is good, I remember a few reports of two or three boolits that suddenly started casting what we'd expect them to out of WW metal (Hmm, FRESH CHERRIES???), but by and large their product has gone downhill. Their track record of fixing problems hasn't been good, either.

You don't see too many complaints about other manufacturers having undersized moulds, neither did too many complaints exist about OLDER Lyman moulds, made back when they knew what the end product ought to be.

Many, if not most, boolit casters from today's generation don't understand the difference between mould temperature, alloy temperature, and pouring techniques, much less how to manipulate them to get the best results from a mould. Larry's right about that, lots of times the "undersized" boolits are operator error. Funny thing, though, that the same operators often have other brands of moulds, too, and aren't complaining about THOSE, just the newly-purchased or recently made LYMANS.

There is too much pattern here, and my experience supports that pattern 100%, to claim that late-model Lyman moulds casting too small is all hogwash and inexperience.

Now the OLD Lyman and Ideal moulds are usually gems, I have quite a few of them and love all of them. They cast just the size I think they should, even with WW alloy.

Gear

[longbow]

Larry:

Not arguing because you are right about alloy and technique. No doubt about it. However, in the case of milsurps, Ideal/Lyman has been around long enough to know that they tend to be oversize so when they design a mould and state it is designed for that gun, I have to wonder why they do not actually make it to suit that gun with its known to be oversize bore.

In the case of the .303 British, I was always under the impression that the nominal bore and groove was as you state so a 0.311"/0.312" boolit should fit a barrel made to "industry standard" size. Looking at SAAMI specs though I find I am wrong.

The drawing on the SAAMI site clearly shows bore dimension to be 0.303" and groove diameter to be 0.314" with a +0.002" tolerance so as large as 0.316" groove:

http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/206.pdf

A 314299 that actually cast 0.314" then would be barely suitable for a barrel at minimum spec and would be undersize for a barrel at maximum spec.

My feeling is that, especially with a gas check design, most people are sizing so if the boolit casts 0.002"/0.003" oversize it can be sized down easily as the gas check is installed. That allows custom fit where required with no harm done sizing down a thou or two and leaving maybe 0.001" over groove diameter.

In any case, you are probably right that we do not matter much to the big companies. If we did I suppose they would make more sizes and styles of moulds. We .303 shooters wouldn't keep them in business I suspect.

Fortunately we have a few very good mould makers available to us like Accurate Molds, NOE, Mihec and a couple of others, so some of us can get "fat" boolits for our oversize bores.

I do like Lyman moulds and designs but my money is now going to NOE, Mihec and Accurate currently because they make moulds in the diameters I need need at affordable prices and excellent quality.

Longbow

[rbertalotto]

I just bought a Winchester 1876 in 45-60. Needed a mold for a 300g bullet. Amazon sells Lyman molds and being a "Prime" customer I could get a 457-191 in two days. Now my experience with Lyman molds over the past couple of years has been a 7 on a scale of 1-10. You get what you pay for..............But I'm here to tell you, this recent Lyman mold is fantastic. No clean up, put it on the hot plate to 300 degrees, poured 1-20 alloy a 725 degrees and the bullets just fell out like my much more expensive Accurate Mold. The mic at exactly .457 and look beautiful!

Loaded some up to shoot tomorrow..........Maybe Lyman finally got some recent issues they were having resolved?

(I also bought a LEE 457-340-F from Amazon at the same time.....For $20 bucks, with handles, you can't complain on what you get. But this mold was also dropping nice near perfect pills! No mold prep....Heat it up, pour, drop!)

Wish all my other LEE and Lyman molds would act like these two!

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, you HAVE seen at least one undersized Lyman mould because I sent it to you. You advised I send it back to Lyman because the cavities didn't line up, but even if they had, it would have cast at .455" . I replied that you could have it if YOU went to the trouble of sending it back to Lyman, but either you missed that PM or didn't want to fight with them over it any more than I did.

Not quite the way I recall the issue gear. I did not receive any email offering that mould. You sent the 457132 because the mould blocks did not line up and it was a factory defect. You wanted to show me Lyman sent out factory defects....that is why you sent the 457132. You sent it with a 454190....that is the mould you claimed cast undersized. I did not cast with the 457132 because you didn't ask me too and.....just how are you supposed to get a reliable bullet diameter when the blocks are not aligned? See photo) Answer is; you can't get an accurate measurement........so don't mind me if I raise the BS flag on that one. I returned the mould to you, as you requested, with the advise to send it back to Lyman as that was an obvious manufacturing problem. Assuming you did and Lyman replaced the mould? If so how is the new one doing?

I simply tested the 454190 mould you sent because you said (in a thread on this forum) it cast undersize bullets. It did in fact cast to nominal diameter + when I tested it. I then offered to buy the 454190 mould not because it didn't cast to nominal + diameter as it did (see photo's) but because you said you no longer wanted it and it was a very good mould. It would have made a good addition to my 45 Colt bullet selection. As soon as I emailed/PM'd the info on what it would really cast you said you wanted it back. Funny how that worked, eh.........I sent it back with a full explanation of alloy and casting technique along with several bullets from each cavity that had cast at 455+ with a correct alloy. Never heard from you again on that mould....not a PM or admission on this forum that you were wrong.....you don't even admit it here.........

Yes the 454190 did indeed cast .4545+ with the correct alloy not the straight COWWs you used with the undersized bullets you sent. I simply added 2% tin to COWWs and the 454190 mould cast very nice .455+ bullets from both cavities........

You can complain all you want about Lyman's new moulds casting undersize bullets but from the bullets I cast with the mould you sent me to test (the 454190) the problem is yours; you used straight COWWs instead of the alloy the moulds are designed for. Yes the older Lyman's and the Ideal moulds do cast to nominal diameter with COWWs. The cherries used to cut those moulds were designed for nominal diameter with #1 alloy as I explained earlier. They will cast bullets quite oversize with #2 alloy. Human nature is when we wreck the car we say something was wrong with the car, when a plane crashes something was wrong with the plane, when the TV won't work something is wrong with the cable, when a gun blows up something is wrong with the gun etc. whch leads us to......when a new Lyman mould casts undersize for you it is something is wrong with Lyman's mould and their quality has gone down.......when the truth is ........you used the wrong alloy for which the mould is designed. ........who's fault is that?

So, if you want to use straight COWWs as your alloy then simply get a custom mould made for it. There are several mould makers that will do that for you. There is no need to constantly trash Lyman for your own wrong choice of alloy for use in Lyman's moulds just to justify ordering a custom mould. Just order the custom mould and be done with it. The OP started this thread having cast perfectly good bullets to nominal diamater with a new Lyman mould. Others have chimed it with the same. Perhaps there is a clue there?

My offer still stands as I have yet to receive a Lyman mould that casts undersize from you or anyone else. I'm not saying there maybe isn't one out there.....I'd just like to see it is all and I put my money where my mouth is...........

The photo's (it is a coincidence of the same name on the price sticker) of the 454190s cast with your Lyman mould speak for themselves....try a correct alloy sometime..........

Larry Gibson

89171891728917389175891768917789178

[Larry Gibson]

Longbow

My bad on that. I was referring to cartridge specs not the "groove diameter" I stated. (sometimes the fingers don't type out what the brain is thinking, especially when thinking of both) Looking at SAAMI's specs for the cartridge we find the MMC is .3125" for the bullet. Since we were talking bullet diameters that was what I meant. My bad........

The commonly held .312" bullet diameter comes from that. An example would be the .311 - .312 jacketed bullets for the ".303 British". You won't fined any .314 - .316 bullets from Speer, Hornady, Sierra, Winchester or Remington......they all will be .311 or .312. Also take Lee for example with bullet moulds; his C31-185-2R is the "303" bullet. Also Lyman for years made to use any of the .311 cast bullets and only in the recent past came out with the 314299. So with the 314299 I quess maybe we matter a little bit to Lyman. Lyman used to cater to the whims of us "knowledgeable" bullet casters but our share of the market is very small and as long as the major cast bullet internet site (this forum) badmouths Lyman's products.....guess what?

I guess maybe that is my point; Lyman has been the hand that has fed us for 100+ years so maybe we should bite that hand? They do have a good customer service and will replace any defective product. I've had nothing but very good service for many years. Those that have bad experiences might want to take a double check on their attitudes a bit when they call Lyman or any other customer service. Probably not going to set the stage for a good relationship if the 1st thing one does is badmouth the product.........Lyman is like any other manufacturer....sometimes a poor product will slip through.......I have found they will replace one that really does. Just my thoughts is all.

Larry Gibson

[longbow]

Larry:

Yes, you are right on with the factory bullet diameters for .303. That is what surprised me when I looked up the SAAMI info. I had always thought that .303 British used a 0.311"/0.312" bullet (which is maybe what has been loaded all along) but when I see the SAAMI info showing 0.314" to possibly 0.316" it makes me wonder why.

I had some Federal factory loads that shot poorly, very poorly. I pulled bullets and found the miked at 0.311". I knurled them to 0.313" and lubed them then re-seated and shot. Accuracy was very good.

Oversize military bores do not seem uncommon but this is more of a case of undersize bullets based on SAAMI specs.

Regardless, Lee Enfields and some other guns do tend to require "fat" boolits which are not commonly available, at least from the big box places.

Longbow

[Larry Gibson]

Regardless, Lee Enfields and some other guns do tend to require "fat" boolits which are not commonly available, at least from the big box places.


Longbow

Definitely some strange goings on with the .303 Brit in ammo and barrel sizes over the years. Before I got the oversize GB Lee mould 311291 I would size down 323470s. I would size at .325, lube and GC and then push through a .318 Lees sizer (.314 honed out). Those always did very, very well in the oversized 7.62x54R MNs and .303 Brits, much better than any .312 or even .314 sized bullets would do.

Larry Gibson

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

.....

[Larry Gibson]

Shawn

I've included the results part of our PM's as now I seem to have a question ... Is the "80/20 lino/lead" mentioned what is recommended by the manufacturer?

No but it casts almost identical to Lyman #2 as to diameter. Subsequently tried straight Lino as I believe that is what RCBS uses(?) as per their manual. That one cavity still was .0005 short of .277. Wouldn't take much to lap it out but I've no .270.......:(

Larry Gibson

[nanuk]

Probably why in most Lyman CBHs they recommend slugging the barrel groove diameter and sizing to .001 over?
Larry Gibson

what makes me laugh about Lyman, is they will post a barrel diameter that is larger than the nominal boolit size, and they show it being sized to a size SMALLER than the groove diameter...

I wonder why they even bother?

[Larry Gibson]

what makes me laugh about Lyman, is they will post a barrel diameter that is larger than the nominal boolit size, and they show it being sized to a size SMALLER than the groove diameter...

I wonder why they even bother?

Lyman has done that one or two times in the past but they always give a good explanation as to "why they bother" in the cartridge preamble. I've seen quite a few sized to groove diameter in the #4 CBH but haven't found any undersized, have you? I'm just interested to know is all.

Another thing to understand is Lyman no longer tests for accuracy by shooting on target, even at 50 yards. Like most everyone else with reliable published cast bullet data they rely on measured internal ballistics to determine not only min/max loads but what loads should give accuracy based on consistent internal ballistics with in known parameters of accuracy. Reason is, and I'm sure you'd agree, it is up to you the reloader to find what shoots best in your firearm.

Larry Gibson